add_mcp_server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that state is persisted to config. It does not say what happens if the server name already exists, whether the connection is validated before saving, whether changes are reversible, or what auth/env requirements apply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a persistent, config-mutating tool with a nested-object parameter, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits too much. An agent cannot determine arguments' formats, idempotency, or failure behavior from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, including a nested env map and a string-array args, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies that name identifies the server, command is the launch binary, args are launch arguments, or how env entries are structured.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb pair ('connect' and 'save to config') acting on a specific resource (an external MCP server), which is enough for an agent to know the operation. It does not explicitly name its inverse sibling remove_mcp_server, but the resource is concrete rather than tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to add an MCP server versus editing config manually, no mention of the sibling remove_mcp_server as the alternative, and no prerequisites such as needing a running server or valid command. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.